Wanna Bicker about/discuss Digital Art vs digital "art"?

[THROBBS]

So pollok created art by doing something different but any artist that saw his work and attempted to emulate his style did not create art because their works were derivative?

Exactly.

As the process did not require much skill. It was conceptual.

That concept was spent. What more is brought to the story by another?
One could argue that perhaps the interplay of color exploration...?

 

[THROBBS]

I like artists in the baroque style like Rembrandt or Rubens.

Who/what…I think throbbs posts are rather pretentious

So you do not feel enlightened at all by the discussion? Or inspired to become enlightened?

I feel that you are being rather closed minded.

Do you think that I am putting on airs? That I am "posing"?

Sorry if I find art history and the discussion of such fascinating. NAH! I'm not sorry.

 

[THROBBS]

I do not rule out ai created content when discussing art.
It took intent, creativity and craftsmanship to create the AI.
You may not like the content created by AI but the ai itself is art and what it creates is the proof

I do not "rule out" AI created imagery when discussing Art.
That is why I created this pompous thread.
It took intent, creativity and craftsmanship to create the AI software.

The output is rarely generated (by the prompter) with craftsmanship. And most often, the intent is to generate something "cool", with minimal effort, creativity, study or knowledge.

I OFTEN enjoy the visuals. I don't not subscribe to the claim that the result is "Art".




Curious that you can dismiss Pollocks work as not "Art", yet it is is THERE just as much (more so, in my view) than AI imagery.

 

[THROBBS]

Ok, we have whittled things down to the quick. At this point I would agree with that. So, you would like visual ai creations to be called pics instead of art because they fail to measure up to the definition

I would, until I see/learn otherwise.

If you go back in the thread, I feel it is very critical to define Art in order to discuss it.

 

[THROBBS]

Also... since AI tech is so new, a language to describe it is being developed.

I find it rather pretentious to say that "I created this picture", when the involvement in the creation process is largely the program itself. Not too far removed from coloring in a coloring book page. Yep, you chose the colors. and even how careful or careless the application is.




Interesting bit about being presumptuous, pompous and pretentious:

Boris also said, "Two thirds of the prompts are only good if you have knowledge and skills, when you know how photography works, when you know art history. This is something that a 20-year-old can’t do.”

 

[Prudence_Art]

Ok, we have whittled things down to the quick. At this point I would agree with that. So, you would like visual ai creations to be called pics instead of art because they fail to measure up to the definition

at points on this thread i have suggested that art needs demystifying
of course in the rarified world of proper grown up art this is not going to please vested interests, who have invested financially.
to me some of the most interesting art is at the fringes where rules are minimal, if they exist at all, so 'pics' have as much validity as anything conceptually or technically 'superior'..
.a.i is perfect for outsiders right now, most viewers are into nice pics
this would definitely be the case with erotica which always existed in the shadows (tho' now beginning to emerge, not least because of the w.w.w.., thinking of tumblr and other platforms even this one, no need to go to a dingy shop in a dodgy part of town anymore)
anyway inspired by your love of baroque art i did the following using a prompt (which i will keep to myself)....hope you find it amusing...or something.



Portrait of a lady aristocrat in the court of King Louis XIV.

 

[THROBBS]

Interesting.

I cannot claim to know Bea, of course. I see nothing of Bea in that portrait even having being told. There is not physical likeness and certainly none of the joy which is presented their AV.

 

[Prudence_Art]

Interesting.

I cannot claim to know Bea, of course. I see nothing of Bea in that portrait even having being told. There is not physical likeness and certainly none of the joy which is presented their AV.

...well of course portraiture is not just about a true likeness.
the painter will often mess around to create a fake representation
most times to flatter the subject
in this case the prompt puts the subject in a new time and place
and the stolen likeness gives the colour palette.

 

[ElectricBlue]

...well of course portraiture is not just about a true likeness.
the painter will often mess around to create a fake representation
most times to flatter the subject
in this case the prompt puts the subject in a new time and place
and the stolen likeness gives the colour palette.

The prompt clearly forgot, "make the render look like Bea." It's not even remotely a likeness. What's the point of it?

 

[THROBBS]

...well of course portraiture is not just about a true likeness.
the painter will often mess around to create a fake representation
most times to flatter the subject
in this case the prompt puts the subject in a new time and place
and the stolen likeness gives the colour palette.

To me the portrait does not even seem evocative.

One definition: "The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person."

nope. Color or even colour palette could aid in that, but can't carry it.

 

[Prudence_Art]

To me the portrait does not even seem evocative.

One definition: "The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person."

nope. Color or even colour palette could aid in that, but can't carry it.

Oof....you are such a curmudgeon.
i know you like it really, even if your enjoyment is expressed as negativity.
you've dug a hole and are wallowing in it like a fat hippopotamus in a slurry pit of excrement and piss....
.....lighten up a bit ffs

 

[Prudence_Art]

, The prompt clearly forgot, "make the render look like Bea

yes, i didnt use that in the prompt...

." It's not even remotely a likeness. What's the point of it?

a bit of fun...something that is not allowed anymore apparently.

 

[THROBBS]

A rhino, not a hippo. *eyeroll*

Such incredible UN-lightness of being there.
Unable to accept legitimate observations.
Stay out of my hole.

 

[Prudence_Art]

A rhino, not a hippo. *eyeroll*

Such incredible UN-lightness of being there.
Unable to accept legitimate observations.
Stay out of my hole.

View attachment 2252493

the thread title is self-explanatory ...
all i have done is try and put a case for digital/a.i art
what you call 'legitimate observations' are in fact your opinions.
me, proposing a looser, less rarified definition of art is another opinion
...the impression i get is that some people dont want to accept
that creative self expression is continually evolving.
which is why i used the hippo/hole allegory.
your response ( maybe subconscious)...a rhino horn and a warning to stay out of your hole...speaks volumes

 

[THROBBS]

the thread title is self-explanatory ...
all i have done is try and put a case for digital/a.i art
what you call 'legitimate observations' are in fact your opinions.
me, proposing a looser, less rarified definition of art is another opinion
...the impression i get is that some people dont want to accept
that creative self expression is continually evolving.
which is why i used the hippo/hole allegory.
your response ( maybe subconscious)...a rhino horn and a warning to stay out of your hole...speaks volumes

I don't think you have heard the volumes spoken. (or simply deny hearing them, in order to remain combative)

Creative expression, indeed can (and does) continually evolve.

However — Something like the definition (the language, the words used to describe, discuss) of a portrait, are essential. If one claims (though you have edited your previous post— appropriately) to have created a portrait OF someone, then it should capture some sort of essence of that person, or it has failed (as a portrait) no matter how "interesting" the end result may be. Being inspired by a couple things is a different matter.

By the way- did you not notice that rhino has no horn?
Cannot you "lighten up"? "stay out of my hole" is actually rather funny.

 

[000zing]

You are dealing with a closed attitude. Wiser to ignore.

 

[THROBBS]

You are dealing with a closed attitude. Wiser to ignore.

Maybe I can open my mind?

 

[Prudence_Art]

I don't think you have heard the volumes spoken. (or simply deny hearing them, in order to remain combative)

hmm, we're supposed to be bickering, i get the feeling you and others are not interested in discussion at all, you expect non compliers just to submit to your rigid rules, otherwise they are painted as 'combative'.. kind of authoritarian attitude considering we are discussing art and creativity....but its the internet so winning is everything i suppose.

Creative expression, indeed can (and does) continually evolve.

However — Something like the definition (the language, the words used to describe, discuss) of a portrait, are essential. If one claims (though you have edited your previous post— appropriately) to have created a portrait OF someone, then it should capture some sort of essence of that person, or it has failed (as a portrait) no matter how "interesting" the end result may be. Being inspired by a couple things is a different matter.

yes. well spotted re:the edit, i had rather hoped that bea mine might have an opinon.
since they appear to have lost interest i made the change, who cares anyway.. i made it so i can do what i want with it...all kind of irrelevant tbh.

By the way- did you not notice that rhino has no horn?
Cannot you "lighten up"? "stay out of my hole" is actually rather funny.

...going by your reasoning its not even a rhinoceros because a distinct feature is missing.

 

[THROBBS]

hmm, we're supposed to be bickering, i get the feeling you and others are not interested in discussion at all, you expect non compliers just to submit to your rigid rules, otherwise they are painted as 'combative'.. kind of authoritarian attitude considering we are discussing art and creativity....but its the internet so winning is everything i suppose.

Seems that you've latched on to the "bickering" and wandered away from the A.I. discussion.

yes. well spotted re:the edit, i had rather hoped that bea mine might have an opinon.
since they appear to have lost interest i made the change, who cares anyway.. i made it so i can do what i want with it...all kind of irrelevant tbh.

I am sure Bea has an opinion. Though there really IS relevance, if the discussion is to be about A.I. "art" and ART in general and what it means to create (or generate) a portrait.

You certainly do not have to "care", and apparently don't. I do.

...going by your reasoning its not even a rhinoceros because a distinct feature is missing.

I do not define a rhinoceros by just its horn. Just as I do not define Art by just one of the aspects that I had presented earlier. In fact, just one aspect alone, rarely is enough to qualify as Art. In my opinion.

 

[blurhead]

"Any fool can pick up a pencil or paintbrush and make a mark on paper or canvas, but it takes great skill and expertise to choose the right words for the computer to make art "
Said no one.

 

[THROBBS]

What is art and how should i evaluate art are to different kind of things.

Art is every consciously activity to create something new.
You can arange existing stones and you did some kind of art.
You can paint the "Last Supper" on a wall and you did some kind of art.
You can use a computer and use a digital pencil, digital assets or ai to do some kind of art.
Spending 20 hours for a pencil sketch or 1 minute to tag an ai is doing art. The result is art.

The depth of creation is one way to judge an artist.
1 Minute tagging or 20 hours sketching are different. But the first can lead to a masterpiece, the second one to some stupid stuff not worth mentioning it.

In my opinion all of this examples are art, you can decide if you honor the artist skills or his/her spent time or find it ridiculous.

To me, that is far too broad a description of "Art". I would say that could be (for the most part) "creative expression".

The reason that I make a distinction is; that (for me again) Art (capital A) demonstrates a measure of mastery/skill not simply accidental production (AI or 4 year old's crayon fumblings). Many folk fell that is elitist or simply semantics, but I think there need be a delineation (I acknowldege that I do not have that demarkation and that it likely. to be a bit blurry) between, for example, a Dancer and one who dances or a Musician vs one who plays an instrument. The distinction is NOT simply being paid.

 

[THROBBS]

Creative Process even on the tiniest level = Art.
There's labor intensive art and the opposite. There's artisanal good and bad art. There's creative art and boring art.
Taste isn't a suitable distinguishing feature. Don't look at art you don't like and do the art you like. So do i.

I totally get that...and agree. It is just the language used.

 

[Prudence_Art]

Creative Process even on the tiniest level = Art.
There's labor intensive art and the opposite. There's artisanal good and bad art. There's creative art and boring art.
Taste isn't a suitable distinguishing feature. Don't look at art you don't like and do the art you like. So do i.

.thank you...this is what i have been arguing for the last few pages.

 

[SteelPoint]

Fine, provided you accept that "tiniest level" creativity = tiniest level talent.

I suspect, put like that, that acceptance will rarely be forthcoming from such people... they really do want to defend the use of their artificial aids and pretend the talent actually comes from them. It's like watching the antics of kids with new toys.

 

[SteelPoint]

I don't agree with your untalented interpretation of my words.

Q.E.D.